Hakeem Olajuwon or Tim Duncan - Start a franchise

[baki]

Hakeem Team Support during 3 of selected "Weak Team Years" (not including many others yet)

91'-92 - Otis Thorpe - All Star (only time in career ever), (Coach Don Chaney Fired mid-season after horrible tenure)

92'-93' - Nothing (No All star, Defensive star/selection, HOF contribution or HOF coach)

93'-94 - Nothing

http://www.basketball-reference.com/

This doesn't even include the Rockets worst years in the 80's with a terrible Coach Don Chaney and teammates. There is no comparison to Duncan's team support vs Olajuwons. I haven't even gotten into competition yet.

Again, when taken in context with the rest, Hakeem is the better individual player imo.

Don Chaney terrible? He was coach of the year in 90-91 and had a respectable 52-30 record. Olajuwon didn't make allstar in 90-91 but team still did well without him and because Thorpe was that underrated x-factor that no one gave credit to at Houston. We had Olajuwon, Thorpe, Maxwell and Bullard on this team.

And while Rudy replaced Chaney midway in 91-92 when Houston was 26-26, they still didn't make the playoffs that year anyway yet they had a team with Olajuwon, Kenny Smith, Thorpe, Maxwell, Herrera, Bullard, Floyd, Buck Johnson, Rollins and Larry Smith. I don't consider this lineup nothing, and I reckon Coach Pop would have done wonders with this group.

In the 92-93 season we improved to a 55-27 record and we had rookie Robert Horry scoring 800 points, Smith improved to second top scorer, they picked up Brooks who was a decent PG and Thorpe and Maxwell helped the Rockets with maintaining a consistent starting lineup. Rudy was coaching great so I don't consider that nothing. Olajuwon also made allstar that year. We just lost to a better Seattle and there was no doubt that we would have lost to Phoenix, Lakers and San Antonio that season as well.

93-94 season our lineup was still Olajuwon, Smith Thorpe, Maxwell, Horry plus Herrera, BUllard, Brooks as well as Elie and Cassell. With the exception of Horry and Brooks we had the same consistent lineup for 3 seasons. That is something because it was a lineup that clearly worked for us. We played incredible that season though we split 2-2 with Seattle, so who knows if could have beat them had we played them instead of Utah/Denver.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Hard to not say Duncan considering his unrivaled & consistent team success.
However Duncan also had vastly superior career circumstances so...

Hakeem honestly does seem like the more talented & capable player between the two so I wouldn't blame anyone for gambling on him and just assuming he'd have won like Duncan (or more then Duncan) if he got to play on those Spurs teams.

[magicmerl]

Hard to not say Duncan considering his unrivaled & consistent team success.
However Duncan also had vastly superior career circumstances so...

Hakeem honestly does seem like the more talented & capable player between the two so I wouldn't blame anyone for gambling on him and just assuming he'd have won like Duncan (or more then Duncan) if he got to play on those Spurs teams.

I think you're confusing Hakeem on his title teams with Hakeem across his whole career.

If you look at their whole career , here's the comparison between the two on a per100 possession basis:
Hakeem PTS30.3 REB15.5 AST3.4 STL2.4 BLK4.3 TOV4.1 PF4.9
Duncan PTS30.4 REB17.0 AST4.7 STL1.1 BLK3.4 TOV3.9 PF3.7

So they are even at scoring (and on similar usg% and efficiency too), Duncan is a better rebounder, passer. Hakeem has better steals and blocks, but that's offset by Duncan's lower turnover and foul rate. I'm hesitant to say which is the better defender since Hakeem is clearly the more active defender but also gave up way more fouls, while Duncan altered shots without fouling.

I think Duncan gets the nod here because of his superior rebounding and passing numbers.

[Baller2014]

Like you say, Chaney was COY. Even if that was a bad call, he had Fitch too (Bird's first title coach), and there wasn't some magical turnaround right away when Rudy T became coach either. Ultimately though, the coaching doesn't matter on an all-time list, because players should be rated on the careers they actually had, not the careers they might have had if things had gone differently. No sensible list ranks "Len Bias if he had lived", "Shaq if he'd learnt to shoot FTs", "Kemp if he'd had a better attitude" or "Rasheed if he'd had a coach who had been able to make him always play like he could at his peak". Hakeem's career is what it is. Hypotheticals about "how good he could have been if things had gone differently" are just that. Hypothetical.

[HotRocks34]

Duncan, and I'm an Hakeem fan.

It's close, but I have to take Duncan for sustained dominance and no real "diva" issues at any point of his career. Hakeem had a falling out with management at some point before the two titles. It revolved around some supposed hamstring injury or something.

Hakeem is my guy, and probably had a better peak than Duncan. But Duncan is no drama and probably stayed better for longer.

You can't go wrong with either guy, IMO.

[Baller2014]

I actually feel really bad for Otis Thorpe reading this thread. Here's a guy who was robbed blind with only 1 all-star appearance, a 6-9 defensive, good shooting, tough as nails 4 man. A guy who put up 20-10-3 on over 50% shooting the year before he got to Houston, and who during his time on the Rockets basically averaged 17-10-3 over his first 4 years there (with FG% between 54% and 59%) just getting shat on by posters who want to prop up Hakeem (a guy who doesn't need propping up, because he has a top 10 all-time career either way). To see him referred to as "nothing", I mean it is unbelievably disrespectful to Thorpe.

[HotRocks34]

I actually feel really bad for Otis Thorpe reading this thread. Here's a guy who was robbed blind with only 1 all-star appearance, a 6-9 defensive, good shooting, tough as nails 4 man. A guy who put up 20-10-3 on over 50% shooting the year before he got to Houston, and who during his time on the Rockets basically averaged 17-10-3 over his first 4 years there (with FG% between 54% and 59%) just getting shat on by posters who want to prop up Hakeem (a guy who doesn't need propping up, because he has a top 10 all-time career either way). To see him referred to as "nothing", I mean it is unbelievably disrespectful to Thorpe.

Otis was a fantastic player. Ironman, gigantic hands, tough and strong, real lunch pail approach to his job. Great dude. I'm not sure you would find anyone who would say a bad thing about him. The fans loved him.

[90sAllDecade]

Don Chaney terrible? He was coach of the year in 90-91 and had a respectable 52-30 record. Olajuwon didn't make allstar in 90-91 but team still did well without him and because Thorpe was that underrated x-factor that no one gave credit to at Houston. We had Olajuwon, Thorpe, Maxwell and Bullard on this team.

And while Rudy replaced Chaney midway in 91-92 when Houston was 26-26, they still didn't make the playoffs that year anyway yet they had a team with Olajuwon, Kenny Smith, Thorpe, Maxwell, Herrera, Bullard, Floyd, Buck Johnson, Rollins and Larry Smith. I don't consider this lineup nothing, and I reckon Coach Pop would have done wonders with this group.

You're including Matt Bullard, Carl Herrera, Sleepy Floyd and Tree Rollins to as a point for team support in comparison to the HOF, all star and defensive talent I compared in Duncan's case?

I can acknowledge Kenny Smith, Thorpe and Maxwell contributing, but besides Thorpe none of even this group were all stars for one year, HOFers or in any way as talented as Duncan's group.

Here's Don Chaney's coaching record. Not all coach of the year accolades are equal, as I'll get to later.



http://www.basketball-reference.com/coa ... do01c.html

Yes Don Chaney is terrible, the team started to make gains that year due to bringing in Kenny Smith that year, Vernon Maxwell playing his first full season with the team and Larry Smith was finally healthy after missing chunks of two seasons due to injury. The team was forced to gain confidence because Olajuwon missed many games due to a bad injury. Pops has a much better record for maximizing talent than Chaney every could and would definitely have been more impactful imo.

When Chaney was fired mid season and Rudy T had the team a full season the team greatly improved record wise and made it to the second round the next year with almost the exact same team. Something Chaney never did in his tenure in the NBA.

Chaney never made it out of the first round his entire career or had a winning record without Hakeem or the GM finally increasing the Rockets talent level in 91. I'm also guessing he was fighting for his job the year Olajuwon got injured as he got fired mid season after that.

The point being, Hakeem had a much worse ownership and coach than Duncan in comparison at the time.

In the 92-93 season we improved to a 55-27 record and we had rookie Robert Horry scoring 800 points, Smith improved to second top scorer, they picked up Brooks who was a decent PG and Thorpe and Maxwell helped the Rockets with maintaining a consistent starting lineup. Rudy was coaching great so I don't consider that nothing. Olajuwon also made allstar that year. We just lost to a better Seattle and there was no doubt that we would have lost to Phoenix, Lakers and San Antonio that season as well.

I respectfully wouldn't get caught up in semantics/language and ignore the underlying meaning of the main point in comparing Rudy to Pops. Rudy was a good coach, whom I definitely acknowledge and appreciate. He built around Hakeem and installed a better system. But he isn't a HOF or top 1-4 coach all time like Pops is in comparison to what Duncan had. Again, Duncan had better talent and coaching around him.

93-94 season our lineup was still Olajuwon, Smith Thorpe, Maxwell, Horry plus Herrera, BUllard, Brooks as well as Elie and Cassell. With the exception of Horry and Brooks we had the same consistent lineup for 3 seasons. That is something because it was a lineup that clearly worked for us. We played incredible that season though we split 2-2 with Seattle, so who knows if could have beat them had we played them instead of Utah/Denver.

To see him referred to as "nothing", I mean it is unbelievably disrespectful to Thorpe.

I put in parenthesis that the Rockets had "nothing" in regards to players who made the All Star team, HOF contributors HOF coachers or defensive selections. Your making a semantic argument imo, which is fine. Instead of nothing you can use what I indicated in parenthesis.

And Baller2014 I appreciate Thorpe and showed you he was an all star player. But really you're downplaying the better help Duncan had and trying to twist semantics and language rather than acknowledging the facts I presented on why Duncan's support is better.

The point was to show that Duncan had higher caliber talent around him than Hakeem. I still haven't seen anyone objectively prove Hakeem had more help in comparison.

01' All Star David Robinson even at his age is better than all star Otis Thorpe in 91', Otis never lead the Rockets in Drtg over Hakeem.

2nd team all NBA defensive Bruce Bowen is better defensively than any player you listed. Cassell and Horry didn't win Rookie 1st and 2nd team honors like Tony Parker and Manu, who had HOF talent etc.

[Baller2014]

Numerous, long posts were made analysing the strength of Duncan's support casts. From 02-03 he had nobody who resembled an all-star player. Hakeem had a guy who was a legit all-star big man next to him, and some other good shooters and role players too. Duncan had the worst backcourt rotation I've ever seen on a contender in 01, something that I also went into great depth about, a post you seem to have wholly ignored. I really don't care what their drtg is either. Even if Hakeem's Rocket's support casts in some of the years we're looking at (like 90-92) were "a wash" (and I think that's downplaying the clear advantage Hakeem enjoyed) the results weren't close to "a wash". Duncan's teams in years like 2002 and 2003 (or 2001) were vastly better, and it's not close.

Basketball is a star game. Who your Robin is matters a great deal more than who your 6th and 7th man are. Not that Hakeem loses the 3-5 comparison most years either, when put against the dire Spurs rosters in 01-03, but at the very least he had the clear best #2 option.

There are numerous Rockets fans, like hotrocks or baki, whose views I respect and appreciate. They have been willing to be objective about Hakeem's strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately we don't disagree about much. If hotrocks said "it's close, but I side with Hakeem because I really value peak play" I'd disagree, but at least I'd understand where he was coming from. But I have a lot less sympathy for posts that trash Rockets legends like Otis Thorpe as "nothing" and try to rewrite history, just to try and win an argument.

[Masigond]

2nd team all NBA defensive Bruce Bowen is better defensively than any player you listed. Cassell and Horry didn't win Rookie 1st and 2nd team honors like Tony Parker and Manu, who had HOF talent etc.

Actually Horry was on the All-Rookie 2nd team of 1993, and those accolades are very dependent on a draft year's quality and the competition. So I wouldn't dare to compare rookies based on them making the All-Rookie teams or not. While Horry wasn't the shooter yet that he became later, he was a legitimate starter with good all-around skills, averaging 10/5/2.5/1/1 in just under 30 mpg. Do you think that such a guy is really worse than rookie Tony Parker (9.2 on pedestrian shooting percentages /2.5/4.3/1.2)?

Ginobili might have been the slightly better rookie than Cassell, but those two guys are quite comparable, too.
Cassell: 6.7 ppg / 2.0 rpg / 2.9 apg / 0.9 spg in 17 mpg as a backup to Kenny Smith, showing his value in the 1994 playoffs when he raised his numbers to 9.4/2.7/4.2/1.0, with scoring in double-digits in 9 games and dishing out more than 5 assists in 8 out of 22 games (being unproductive in 5 out of 22 games).
Ginobili: 7.6 ppg / 2.3 rpg / 2.0 apg / 1.4 spg in 21 mpg, backing up Stephen Jackson. He too improved a bit in the playoffs to 9.4 ppg / 3.8 rpg / 2.9 apg / 1.7 apg, scoring in double-digits in 13 games (5 unproductive games out of 24).

I don't know why you pretend that there was that much of a difference between those rookies. Furthermore they don't even matter as they weren't Rockets yet as we are discussing Hakeem's alleged lack of help on the early 90s teams. When Horry and (one year later) Cassell were on the team, the Rockets already had improved to a 55-58 win team.
So let's stick with the early 90s Rockets when comparing them to the early 00s Spurs. Yes, they had the worse coach (but how bad is a coach who manages to maintain his team's record without his team's superstar? Chaney must have done something right in the 1990-91 season when the team didn't miss much of a beat when Hakeem missed almost a third of this season's games...). And they had a worse bench while the Spurs had many experienced players (many of whom would very likely have been called washed up if they had been on bad teams. Like with Boris Diaw now: Fat bad player on the Bobcats in the fans' opinion, now he is a productive all-around talent again, even though his numbers of 2013-14 are quite the same as in 2010-11). Is that enough to explain the vast difference between a Rockets team winning 45 games on average for 3 straight seasons (1989-90 to 1991-92) while the Spurs without much star help for Duncan were winning 58.7 games between 2000-2001 and 2002-2003, quite regardless of Robinson's declining? I think that there also must have been some difference between their respective star players. Somehow Olajuwon didn't manage to help his teammates as much as Duncan did.
Yes, part of it is better coaching. IMO another part of it is Duncan being the better passer and the more intelligent player in picking his spots in his team's offense.

[90sAllDecade]

Now you're appealing to social proof (and subjective opinion) rather than objective facts I presented to support your argument. If you want to go that route fine.

Who's "objective" opinon has more wieght? Your own or Michael Jordan's who played the game against him?

If I had to pick a center [for an all-time best team], I would take Olajuwon. That leaves out Shaq, Patrick Ewing. It leaves out Wilt Chamberlain. It leaves out a lot of people. And the reason I would take Olajuwon is very simple: he is so versatile because of what he can give you from that position. It's not just his scoring, not just his rebounding or not just his blocked shots. People don't realize he was in the top seven in steals. He always made great decisions on the court. For all facets of the game, I have to give it to him.

—Michael Jordan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Olajuwon

Bill Russell put Hakeem in his top 6 all time when asked not to include Wilt or himself @7:20 mark:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWcg7Kyg1fE[/youtube]

How about Robery Horry who played with both Duncan and Hakeem? And says Hakeem is better?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_-9Z2LF4fI[/youtube]

Or Mario Elie, who also played with both Duncan and Hakeem and is now an NBA assistant coach:

Friedman: "You mentioned that Olajuwon is the greatest player you played with. You also played with the Spurs and Tim Duncan and David Robinson, who was obviously up there in years at that point in time but still a good player. What are your memories of playing with them? Since you do feel that Olajuwon is the greatest player you played with, compare his game to Duncan’s. Some people see a little similarity between their games. What do you think of that?"

Elie: "I love Tim. I think he may be the second best player I played with but 'Dream,' just his performance in pressure situations—when David Robinson got the '95 MVP, 'Dream' told me, 'Mario, he’s borrowing my trophy.' When I heard that I said, 'Somebody’s in trouble tonight.' That guy put on a performance—under that pressure against the MVP and we have no home court advantage—and 'Dream' just dominated that position. It reminded me of when Jordan dominated Clyde when they were comparing the two guards. They were comparing two centers and 'Dream' just totally—I don’t want to say embarrassed—but he really embarrassed him, he dominated him—(series averages of) 35 (points), 13 (rebounds), 5 assists, 4 blocks. Those are amazing numbers for a center."

http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2006/08/mario-elie-compares-hakeem-olajuwon.html

There are other posters who are Rockets fans and non Rockets fans who agree Hakeem is better. Everyone's opinion is their own and they have a right to it. I prefer objective facts over opinion which are subjective rather than objective.

If objective facts don't support your argument, like the player list comparison, Drtg leaders on the same team and coaching record I gave you, you say you "don't care" and don't acknowledge them.

I'm less interested in trying to "win" a conversation, than trying to get to the truth of the matter.

[Masigond]

Those guys are talking peak Hakeem when he finally had improved his passing and when he was playing better in the flow of a team's offense. Most Duncan supporters had admitted that this version of Olajuwon is superior to Duncan. He finally managed to transfer his superior individual talent (greater than Duncan's. Noone disputes that) to truly improving his team.
But he wasn't doing so for some years of his career while Duncan was quite the same player for a decade and from the get-go. And as this Duncan might be better for your team than early 90s' Hakeem, they prefer to start a franchise with TD. Or at least I do, that is.

[Baller2014]

Players talk off the top of their heads and say all sorts of dumb things all the time. Check out Barkley's "top 10 all-time lists". Over the years he must have named 30 guys in it. They can't all be top 10 Barkley! Players also have a long tradition of paying tribute to the older generation, and mouthing some empty platitudes about how they were "the best", not because they think they were, but because they know it's not for them to tear down the past idols, it's for the media (who will do it anyway).

Plus, like Masigond says, they're talking about peak Hakeem, not normal level Hakeem.

[Masigond]

By the way: The interview with Russell and Chamberlain is of 1999. No way that Duncan could already be mentioned back then with only 2-3 seasons on his back. When making the same interview now (unfortunately not possible as Wilt had passed away in 1999) it'd be arguably quite likely that Duncan would have been named in the same breath as Hakeem.
At least we know that Russell likes Duncan a lot...
http://www.nba.com/spurs/multimedia/rus ... n_pt1.html

[90sAllDecade]

Actually Horry was on the All-Rookie 2nd team of 1993. While he wasn't the shooter yet that he became later, he was a legitimate starter with good all-around skills, averaging 10/5/2.5/1/1 in just under 30 mpg. Do you think that such a guy is really worse than rookie Tony Parker (9.2 on pedestrian shooting percentages /2.5/4.3/1.2)?

Ginobili might have been the slightly better rookie than Cassell, but those two guys are quite comparable, too.
Cassell: 6.7 ppg / 2.0 rpg / 2.9 apg / 0.9 spg in 17 mpg as a backup to Kenny Smith, showing his value in the 1994 playoffs when he raised his numbers to 9.4/2.7/4.2/1.0, with scoring in double-digits in 9 games and dishing out more than 5 assists in 8 out of 22 games (being unproductive in 5 out of 22 games).
Ginobili: 7.6 ppg / 2.3 rpg / 2.0 apg / 1.4 spg in 21 mpg, backing up Stephen Jackson. He too improved a bit in the playoffs to 9.4 ppg / 3.8 rpg / 2.9 apg / 1.7 apg, scoring in double-digits in 13 games (5 unproductive games out of 24).

Good call on Horry, I missed that and can acknowledge good points from others. But I have to ask you will Cassell or Horry go to the HOF? If you think those players have the same talent as Manu, Robinson, Bowen and Parker (not even counting the time spent with Rodman, Elliot, Leonard etc.) we can respectfully agree to disagree.

I don't know why you pretend that there was that much of a difference between those rookies. Furthermore they don't even matter as they weren't Rockets yet as we are discussing Hakeem's alleged lack of help on the early 90s teams. When Horry and (one year later) Cassell were on the team, the Rockets already had improved to a 55-58 win team.

I brought up all talent Duncan had around him in comparsion to "Weak Team" years other posters brought up. Horry was good rookie, but will not make the HOF like those I listed. Manu was an international star and so was Parker, Robinson was a former MVP all will make the HOF unlike Horry. Duncan had more talent around him including coaching which is the biggest disparity.

Hakeem benefited from improved coaching and better talent around him. Many were comparing Duncan's team achievements but not analyzing team support and competition in comparison. When you fully compare them, Hakeem is the better individual player imo.

So let's stick with the early 90s Rockets when comparing them to the early 00s Spurs. Yes, they had the worse coach (but how bad is a coach who manages to maintain his team's record without his team's superstar? Chaney must have done something right in the 1990-91 season when the team didn't miss much of a beat when Hakeem missed almost a third of this season's games...). And they had a worse bench while the Spurs had many experienced players (many of whom would very likely have been called washed up if they had been on bad teams. Like with Boris Diaw now: Fat bad player on the Bobcats in the fans' opinion, now he is a productive all-around talent again, even though his numbers of 2013-14 are quite the same as in 2010-11). Is that enough to explain the vast difference between a Rockets team winning 45 games on average for 3 straight seasons (1989-90 to 1991-92) while the Spurs without much star help for Duncan were winning 58.7 games between 2000-2001 and 2002-2003, quite regardless of Robinson's declining? I think that there also must have been some difference between their respective star players. Somehow Olajuwon didn't manage to help his teammates as much as Duncan did.
Yes, part of it is better coaching. IMO another part of it is Duncan being the better passer and the more intelligent player in picking his spots in his team's offense.

If you disagree with Chaney's coaching record I posted, which includes his career records without Olajuwon and the owners finally adding more talent in 91 then we can agree to disagree.

He was habitually a bad coach throughout his career and had a losing record without Hakeem or the increased talent in 91. The same team improved 13 games and made the second round without him, Chaney never got past the first round his entire coaching career.

I also showed the player list comparison for Duncan's teams vs Hakeem's (you can include rookie 2nd team Horry) and their is big advantage for Duncan. The team support helped his team achievements, but individually Hakeem is the better player when you analyze all the context imo.


This is from 2011 but shows how the Spurs fared without Tim in the lineup




http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2011/03/21/how-the-spurs-have-fared-with-duncan-in-and-out-of-lineup/

Over a decade's worth of data and the Spurs are 34-29 without him, a .540 winning percenatage. Equal to a 44 win team.

EDIT: Also without the playoff record, the Spurs are 33-25 in the regular season without him, a .569 percentage. Equal to a 47 (rounded) win team RS, which likely increases with also including more recent years in his career.

Duncan's passing benefited and was increased by his HOF, all star teammates he was passing to as well as the all time great coach and system he was placed in. He also had better GM and ownership than Hakeem to help.

The Spurs have been the top passing team in the NBA many times because Pops made them do drills and installed a culture of the extra pass. At times they wanted to practice 10 pass possessions.

Tim is an all time great and sets the tone as a leader but his passing is greatly enhanced by his coach, system and teammates. Their success at his current age, depth and Duncan's reduced minutes show they're still dominant with Pops coaching and his teammates without him.

[Baller2014]

Ah, a new straw man test for Hakeem's support cast emerges; "do you think those guys will make the HoF?" All that matters is how good a player was at the time he played for you, not what his career looks like at the end. It's like saying "Lebron had Shaq in 2010!" Yeh, but he wasn't Shaq in 2010 was he? This has been explained multiple times I hasten to add.

As for Duncan's team mates, looking over a 10 year stretch (most of the games having occurred after his prime ended) is totally pointless, because people agree Duncan has had plenty of good teams over his career (Hakeem has had some good teams too as it happens). It's 01-03 when Duncan had rubbish teams, and it's those years people are rightly honing in on, because they prove that prime Duncan could carry bad teams to contention.

[Masigond]

Good call on Horry, I missed that and can acknowledge good points from others. But I have to ask you will Cassell or Horry go to the HOF? If you think those players have the same talent as Manu, Robinson, Bowen and Parker (not even counting the time spent with Rodman, Elliot, Leonard etc.) we can respectfully agree to disagree.
I brought up all talent Duncan had around him in comparsion to "Weak Team" years other posters brought up. Horry was good rookie, but will not make the HOF like those I listed. Manu was an international star and so was Parker, Robinson was a former MVP all will make the HOF unlike Horry. Duncan had more talent around him including coaching which is the biggest disparity.

If you intend to be so stubborn that the future performance of a player has any significance on his actual performance in a token season, sure.
What we know for quite sure: Parker was no All-Star caliber player in 2002-03. Neither was Manu. They had shown flashes, but lacked consistency and were by no means true impact players. At this stage they were guys who might contribute enough to make their team win one game, then in the next game they'd be awful. Which is basically the same with players like Horry and Cassell in their early Rockets seasons, or with Derek Fisher for that matter. No star player, no great talent, but a savvy one who was on the right great team to make some of his shots matter. Noone would talk about rookie Parker or Manu if they had been stuck on the Bucks, for example. They wouldn't even be considered HoF-talents based on their NBA careers.

Yes, they eventually became mainstays of the Spurs' success, but you overrate them by much if you intend on listing them as the great talent that Duncan had around him in the early 2000s. It has already been said: Parker was getting benched for freaking Speedy Claxton for stretches of the 2003 playoffs run as he was too inconsistent. Mentioning that he became a star and even a HoF caliber player later doesn't matter here. Or does it help the Suns of the late 90s that they had Steve Nash backing up Jason Kidd and Kevin Johnson? Then it must really be the greatest PG rotation we've ever seen. But no: Nash needed some years to become a legitimate NBA starter back then, another couple of years to become an All-Star and 7 years to become an MVP candidate and Hall-of-Fame candidate. Parker and Ginobili were not so many years removed of being impact players, but they weren't very good in their very early years. As I tried to show: Not really better than Horry or Cassell in their respective rookie years.

And that's why I refuse to take that much notice to lists of all this alleged help Duncan had. He had great help for most of his career, but there were some years he played without great impact players (so stick with the actual performance of Duncan's and Hakeem's teammates in the respective seasons). Still the Spurs were easily among the NBA top teams and their lesser talents were contributing better than in other teams. I think it's too superficial to just say that it's because of Pop in comparison to Chaney. It's a testament for the superstars' playing style as well. I don't see any reason to ignore that Olajuwon himself changed to help his team become better in 1992-93. The difference in the stats is somewhat subtle but it shows that he really became a better passer in the second half of his career. And as he wasn't the same player before, it should get considered when valueing the players in a comparison.
Again: Olajuwon has always been the greater talent. But the better NBA player in terms of impact (thus doing the right things to make his teams win)? I doubt that. Over the course of their careers, Duncan is superior in that regard.

[Baller2014]

Hey, if we're just going to base a guy's value on "flashes" Tony Delk and Terrence Ross both had 50+ point games once. They must have been secret stars too.

[baki]

You're including Matt Bullard, Carl Herrera, Sleepy Floyd and Tree Rollins to as a point for team support in comparison to the HOF, all star and defensive talent I compared in Duncan's case?

No, I included these guys to a point that they were consistently with the team (except for Floyd) and all had a role and opportunity to play just as anybody did on the Spurs team. Floyd and Rollins while not superstars were both good players from other teams, it was up to management to optimize their roles.

I can acknowledge Kenny Smith, Thorpe and Maxwell contributing, but besides Thorpe none of even this group were all stars for one year, HOFers or in any way as talented as Duncan's group.

But they were all talented and most importantly they all played together for 3 full seasons until their first championship.

Robinson and Duncan had a lineup that was constantly changing. Parker didn't make the allstar until 5-6 years later and Ginobili didn't make it till 6-7 years later while coming off the bench, but both won the championship in their 3-4th year. Nobody knew that these guys were going to be good, they were longshots compared to Smith (1st round 6th pick), Thorpe(1st round 9th pick) and Maxwell (2nd round 48th pick).

Yes Don Chaney is terrible, the team started to make gains that year due to bringing in Kenny Smith that year, Vernon Maxwell playing his first full season with the team and Larry Smith was finally healthy after missing chunks of two seasons due to injury. The team was forced to gain confidence because Olajuwon missed many games due to a bad injury. Pops has a much better record for maximizing talent than Chaney every could and would definitely have been more impactful imo.

Don lucked out with such a promising lineup in 91 but he doesn't do the recruiting and to be fair the Clippers he coach were a terrible team anyway and Detroit was declining. I have to laugh that the team was sudden forced to gain confidence HAHAHA, what kind of excuse is that? Chaney took the team with an injured and mostly unavailable Olajuwon to 52 wins with Otis Thorpe as their main scorer and Maxwell/Smith second.

When Chaney was fired mid season and Rudy T had the team a full season the team greatly improved record wise and made it to the second round the next year with almost the exact same team. Something Chaney never did in his tenure in the NBA.

When Rudy T pick up where Chaney left off he only managed a 16-14 record. The team improved the next year because Chaney didn't have Robert Horry. As I said they got a bunch of guys to compliment the bench and 1st round 11th pick Horry who was an amazing player not only for the Rockets but also for the Spurs and Lakers.

Chaney never made it out of the first round his entire career or had a winning record without Hakeem or the GM finally increasing the Rockets talent level in 91. I'm also guessing he was fighting for his job the year Olajuwon got injured as he got fired mid season after that.

The point being, Hakeem had a much worse ownership and coach than Duncan in comparison at the time.

I think it was drama queen Olajuwon who forced him out.

Like I've been saying all this time, no one can predict how a player, coach and team would turn out. Pop had a 17-47 record in his first season, nobody was predicting that he would later win 5 championships, Robinson would become seriously injured and was no longer the same player since. Robinson finally gets someone who was equivalent to an Otis Thorpe in Duncan and they win their first championship. Duncan was the only higher ranked player Robinson ever had on the team while Olajuwon had Sampson, Thorpe, Smith and Horry to name a few. Not only that, Olajuwon continue to receive Drexler, Barkley and Pippen, what else did Duncan get?

I respectfully wouldn't get caught up in semantics/language and ignore the underlying meaning of the main point in comparing Rudy to Pops. Rudy was a good coach, whom I definitely acknowledge and appreciate. He built around Hakeem and installed a better system. But he isn't a HOF or top 1-4 coach all time like Pops is in comparison to what Duncan had. Again, Duncan had better talent and coaching around him.

The Spurs didn't have as many talents but they worked harder. Simple as that, that work ethics won them 5 championships in the space of 3 decades. Olajuwon was only 31 when he started to declined after the second championship and never got anywhere near his peak again. At least Robinson played on till he won his second championship at 38.

I put in parenthesis that the Rockets had "nothing" in regards to players who made the All Star team, HOF contributors HOF coachers or defensive selections. Your making a semantic argument imo, which is fine. Instead of nothing you can use what I indicated in parenthesis.

Like I already said, Spurs didn't recruit future HOF players they built them, those players stayed and they won more championships, they earned their legacies. Houston was far more selfish, their group didn't want to hang around, Olajuwon declined and didn't care for anymore for Houston anyway knowing that he'll get his HOF trophy and he left the team.

The point was to show that Duncan had higher caliber talent around him than Hakeem. I still haven't seen anyone objectively prove Hakeem had more help in comparison.

I think the argument for Duncan have been pretty convincing so far. Olajuwon had more than enough good players to win more championships. They had the right coach in Rudy T and they had a good balance of young and experienced player, but like everyone keeps saying, Olajuwon only peaked for those 2 seasons. That's not nearly enough for greatness.

[Frosty]

If you disagree with Chaney's coaching record I posted, which includes his career records without Olajuwon and the owners finally adding more talent in 91 then we can agree to disagree.

He was habitually a bad coach throughout his career and had a losing record without Hakeem or the increased talent in 91. The same team improved 13 games and made the second round without him, Chaney never got past the first round his entire coaching career.

I also showed the player list comparison for Duncan's teams vs Hakeem's (you can include rookie 2nd team Horry) and their is big advantage for Duncan. The team support helped his team achievements, but individually Hakeem is the better player when you analyze all the context imo.


This is from 2011 but shows how the Spurs fared without Tim in the lineup




http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2011/03/21/how-the-spurs-have-fared-with-duncan-in-and-out-of-lineup/

Over a decade's worth of data and the Spurs are 34-29 without him, a .540 winning percenatage. Equal to a 44 win team.

Duncan's passing benefited and was increased by his HOF, all star teammates he was passing to as well as the all time great coach and system he was placed in. He also had better GM and ownership than Hakeem to help.

The Spurs have been the top passing team in the NBA many times because Pops made them do drills and installed a culture of the extra pass. At times they wanted to practice 10 pass possessions.

Tim is an all time great and sets the tone as a leader but his passing is greatly enhanced by his coach, system and teammates. Their success at his current age, depth and Duncan's reduced minutes show they're still dominant with Pops coaching and his teammates without him.

And that folks is how you knock down a weak argument.